Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Non-Aggression

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 4:57:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To follow the non-aggression principle does one have to be pro choice?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That depends, how does one view the life status, and so the rights status of the unborn baby (and at what stages of life).

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:05:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

You have the right, according to absolute ownership, to ask me to leave your property and make me leave.

If I invite anyone to my house, I have the right to request them to leave at any time.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:08:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

It gives me the right to throw you out of my house, unless this is literal entrapment, in which case we're both dead anyways.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:10:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:05:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

You have the right, according to absolute ownership, to ask me to leave your property and make me leave.

If I invite anyone to my house, I have the right to request them to leave at any time.

But what if the only way to get them to leave is to kill them?
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:12:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

The mother did not send the baby an invitation. This is more analogous to going to a party without a lock on your door and discovering an unwanted visitor upon your return.

I will be debating the proper libertarian perspective on abortion with someone at some point eventually. If you are interested in discussing this in more depth than let me know. I don't have the attention span for prolonged forum debates.

Spinko - I would say the answer is yes but there is no consensus.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:14:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:12:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

The mother did not send the baby an invitation. This is more analogous to going to a party without a lock on your door and discovering an unwanted visitor upon your return.

I'd say it's more like sending an invitation thinking that it wouldn't be answered, but it's still fun to send invitations. The baby did not just crawl into the mother's uterus.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:20:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:10:16 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:05:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

You have the right, according to absolute ownership, to ask me to leave your property and make me leave.

If I invite anyone to my house, I have the right to request them to leave at any time.

But what if the only way to get them to leave is to kill them?

Then they should have asked for a binding "no asking me to leave" contract before accepting the invitation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:20:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:14:52 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:12:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

The mother did not send the baby an invitation. This is more analogous to going to a party without a lock on your door and discovering an unwanted visitor upon your return.

I'd say it's more like sending an invitation thinking that it wouldn't be answered, but it's still fun to send invitations. The baby did not just crawl into the mother's uterus.

That doesn't seem analogous at all. You're making it seem as though the mother consents wholesale to the risk of pregnancy. In reality, her intention to get an abortion as a countermeasure is indicative only of the fact that, though she was willing to risk fertilization, that's merely a setback to engaging in sex without strings which can be rectified later by aborting. A libertarian shouldn't accept tacit consent to full-term pregnancy anymore than he should accept tacit consent to overarching state power.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:21:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:14:52 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:12:22 PM, Grape wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:02:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm."

Not really. The mother should have known that the baby could exist, and should have been prepared for the consequences. If I send you an invitation to my house thinking that you wouldn't be able to show up, then you do show up, and a snowstorm traps us both in my house for a few days, does the fact that you're going to be on my property using my stuff give me the right to kill you?

The mother did not send the baby an invitation. This is more analogous to going to a party without a lock on your door and discovering an unwanted visitor upon your return.

I'd say it's more like sending an invitation thinking that it wouldn't be answered, but it's still fun to send invitations. The baby did not just crawl into the mother's uterus.

That really depends on how she got pregnant, doesn't it?

Either way, even if you invite someone, you have the right to ask them to leave. Then, if they refuse, you have the right to force them to leave (according to the non-aggression principle).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:24:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
That depends, how does one view the life status, and so the rights status of the unborn baby (and at what stages of life).

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm.":

By far the worst argument in defense of the Pro-Choice position, as if the fetus:

A. willed itself in to existence
B. willed itself in to existence with the malicious intent to kill the one thing keeping it alive.

But the short answer to the question remains the same. The debate over the unborn has always come down to an interpretation of what being a human means.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:29:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:21:20 PM, OreEle wrote:

Either way, even if you invite someone, you have the right to ask them to leave. Then, if they refuse, you have the right to force them to leave (according to the non-aggression principle).

It's not that they refuse so much as that they can't.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:31:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:24:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
That depends, how does one view the life status, and so the rights status of the unborn baby (and at what stages of life).

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm.":

By far the worst argument in defense of the Pro-Choice position, as if the fetus:

A. willed itself in to existence
B. willed itself in to existence with the malicious intent to kill the one thing keeping it alive.

But the short answer to the question remains the same. The debate over the unborn has always come down to an interpretation of what being a human means.

Regardless of intent, the fetus is intruding on the mother's rights. If a guy starts sleepwalking and tries to kill his wife does the wife have a right to self defense even though it was not the guy's intention to kill her?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:33:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:24:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
That depends, how does one view the life status, and so the rights status of the unborn baby (and at what stages of life).

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm.":

By far the worst argument in defense of the Pro-Choice position, as if the fetus:

A. willed itself in to existence
B. willed itself in to existence with the malicious intent to kill the one thing keeping it alive.

I don't know that it's necessarily the weakest argument. I think you're simply phrasing it in such a way that it seems feebler than it actually is. What a pro-choicer will generally tell you is that unconscious or unintended aggression (i.e. irrational aggression) isn't exempt from the principle. A hungry lion and a tapeworm probably don't have patently malicious intent, but it's no less the case that one is justified in defending himself from the lion or removing the tapeworm. The only difference is the special pleading being done for fetuses by virtue of their membership in homo sapiens, which doesn't seem to be a particularly useful metric for gauging how deserving an entity is of political protection.

But the short answer to the question remains the same. The debate over the unborn has always come down to an interpretation of what being a human means.

That's an indeterminate debate. There's no objective truth to what a "person" is--it's an essentially-contested concept which will remain amorphous due to its instrumentality in achieving ideological goals. Personally, I think we require a different political mechanism than personhood for determining how we afford legal rights.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:34:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:29:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:21:20 PM, OreEle wrote:

Either way, even if you invite someone, you have the right to ask them to leave. Then, if they refuse, you have the right to force them to leave (according to the non-aggression principle).

It's not that they refuse so much as that they can't.

If they physically can't (which no longer applies, since we physically can remove the baby), then you have the right to dictate how they can use your stuff in the mean time (where they sleep, what bathroom they can use, what they can eat, etc).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:36:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:24:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:00:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
That depends, how does one view the life status, and so the rights status of the unborn baby (and at what stages of life).

A true "non-aggression" would have to be pro-choice, as the baby (if it is a human with rights) is violating the mother's rights by causing "harm" and so the mother has the right to "end" that "harm.":

By far the worst argument in defense of the Pro-Choice position, as if the fetus:

A. willed itself in to existence
B. willed itself in to existence with the malicious intent to kill the one thing keeping it alive.

But the short answer to the question remains the same. The debate over the unborn has always come down to an interpretation of what being a human means.

No one ever claimed that the fetus willed itself into existence or intended anything, so that point is meaningless, also as claimed earlier, it doesn't matter on intent, only if rights are broken.

If I hurt you, but didn't mean to, does that mean I'm absolved of violating your rights?

If I accidently drive my car into your house, and cause $25,000 in damage, am I free from paying that because I didn't mean to?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:37:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:34:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:29:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:21:20 PM, OreEle wrote:

Either way, even if you invite someone, you have the right to ask them to leave. Then, if they refuse, you have the right to force them to leave (according to the non-aggression principle).

It's not that they refuse so much as that they can't.

If they physically can't (which no longer applies, since we physically can remove the baby), then you have the right to dictate how they can use your stuff in the mean time (where they sleep, what bathroom they can use, what they can eat, etc).

I think the question is the degree to which another's dependence on you is a mortgage on your resources, and the degree to which your consent to the person's company is consent to tolerate their dependence. Another related question is whether it is permissible to reverse one's consent in cases where dependence is not only established, but also necessary (such as in the case of inviting someone into your home, only to be trapped in by a snowstorm).
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:39:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:34:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:29:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:21:20 PM, OreEle wrote:

Either way, even if you invite someone, you have the right to ask them to leave. Then, if they refuse, you have the right to force them to leave (according to the non-aggression principle).

It's not that they refuse so much as that they can't.

If they physically can't (which no longer applies, since we physically can remove the baby), then you have the right to dictate how they can use your stuff in the mean time (where they sleep, what bathroom they can use, what they can eat, etc).

By "can't," I mean that they can't leave alive. For the fetus, by your explanation, it would get to stay the full nine months. The mother does get to control the nutrients it receives, after all. Of course, it would also be morally wrong to drink while pregnant due to the aggression against the fetus.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:40:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Regardless of intent, the fetus is intruding on the mother's rights. If a guy starts sleepwalking and tries to kill his wife does the wife have a right to self defense even though it was not the guy's intention to kill her?:

Then maybe she should have been more proactive in keeping the "intruder" which she created, out.

I'm not against Roe v Wade, but I would prefer living in a society where people own up to the problems they themselves created and not strawman fetuses as if they were akin to parasites.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:42:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:36:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
No one ever claimed that the fetus willed itself into existence or intended anything, so that point is meaningless, also as claimed earlier, it doesn't matter on intent, only if rights are broken.

If I hurt you, but didn't mean to, does that mean I'm absolved of violating your rights?

Depends. Did I hurt you because I punched you in the face, or because you ran in front of my car?

If I accidently drive my car into your house, and cause $25,000 in damage, am I free from paying that because I didn't mean to?

Depends. Did you drive into my house due to carelessness, or because I set up a magnetic field that redirected your car into my house?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:43:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:40:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Regardless of intent, the fetus is intruding on the mother's rights. If a guy starts sleepwalking and tries to kill his wife does the wife have a right to self defense even though it was not the guy's intention to kill her?:

Then maybe she should have been more proactive in keeping the "intruder" which she created, out.

I'm not against Roe v Wade, but I would prefer living in a society where people own up to the problems they themselves created and not strawman fetuses as if they were akin to parasites.

Well, they ARE parasites. If we say that one can't get an abortion after the condom breaks and the eggs are fertilized, we would, if we are being consistent, ban someone from removing a tapeworm after eating an undercooked steak. The only difference between the two, other than the difference in methods by which the parasites enter the body, is that there's usually a closer emotional and physical tie between mother and fetus, and, more specifically, that the fetus is a developing member of our species, as opposed to a tapeworm.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:43:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know that it's necessarily the weakest argument. I think you're simply phrasing it in such a way that it seems feebler than it actually is. What a pro-choicer will generally tell you is that unconscious or unintended aggression (i.e. irrational aggression) isn't exempt from the principle. A hungry lion and a tapeworm probably don't have patently malicious intent, but it's no less the case that one is justified in defending himself from the lion or removing the tapeworm.:

Granted, but humans do have the wherewithal to understand the principle that sex has consequences... That's why they created prophylactics. I'm saying to demonize a fetus as an intruder is about as compelling as inviting a known rapist in to your home for tea, and then being astonished that he raped you.

That's an indeterminate debate. There's no objective truth to what a "person":

Yep, and therein lies the crux of the debate. I don't think this debate will ever truly end because of that immutable fact.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:50:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, they ARE parasites.:

Then you're a parasite too feeding off the supply of the world. The fact is that every one of us got our start in the exact same manner. Obviously the younger we are, the less autonomous we are.

If we say that one can't get an abortion after the condom breaks and the eggs are fertilized, we would, if we are being consistent, ban someone from removing a tapeworm after eating an undercooked steak. The only difference between the two, other than the difference in methods by which the parasites enter the body, is that there's usually a closer emotional and physical tie between mother and fetus, and, more specifically, that the fetus is a developing member of our species, as opposed to a tapeworm.:

Yeah, that, and the fact that all people were once fetuses. I don't dehumanize a fetus, thinking of it as a non-human. I look at a fetus as merely a description of that particular point in gestation or human maturity -- no different than zygote, fetus, newborn, toddler, young child, child, teenager, young adult, adult, or geriatric. They are merely descriptions of age.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:51:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:43:54 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I don't know that it's necessarily the weakest argument. I think you're simply phrasing it in such a way that it seems feebler than it actually is. What a pro-choicer will generally tell you is that unconscious or unintended aggression (i.e. irrational aggression) isn't exempt from the principle. A hungry lion and a tapeworm probably don't have patently malicious intent, but it's no less the case that one is justified in defending himself from the lion or removing the tapeworm.:

Granted, but humans do have the wherewithal to understand the principle that sex has consequences... That's why they created prophylactics. I'm saying to demonize a fetus as an intruder is about as compelling as inviting a known rapist in to your home for tea, and then being astonished that he raped you.

Of course people understand that sex carries consequences--that's why we have not only preemptive measures, like condoms and birth control, but also reactive measures, like adoption and abortion. It's sort of like planning a contingency: we have measures in place that should hopefully allow sexual activity without pregnancy, but, in the event that preemption doesn't work, we have a way of initiating damage control.

Additionally, I think it's a bit of a false analogy, since one isn't actively inviting a fetus into her body unless her intention is to get pregnant. She invites the risk of fertilization, but also attempts to minimize that through preemption and, if necessary, reactive damage control.

That's an indeterminate debate. There's no objective truth to what a "person":

Yep, and therein lies the crux of the debate. I don't think this debate will ever truly end because of that immutable fact.

That's why we probably ought to construct a different mechanism. Personhood usually works, but it doesn't seem to resolve tensions when you get to the gray areas that development and such bring to the table.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:53:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:39:14 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:34:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:29:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:21:20 PM, OreEle wrote:

Either way, even if you invite someone, you have the right to ask them to leave. Then, if they refuse, you have the right to force them to leave (according to the non-aggression principle).

It's not that they refuse so much as that they can't.

If they physically can't (which no longer applies, since we physically can remove the baby), then you have the right to dictate how they can use your stuff in the mean time (where they sleep, what bathroom they can use, what they can eat, etc).

By "can't," I mean that they can't leave alive. For the fetus, by your explanation, it would get to stay the full nine months. The mother does get to control the nutrients it receives, after all. Of course, it would also be morally wrong to drink while pregnant due to the aggression against the fetus.

The fetus is the original aggressor so retribution against it can be justified, though I would prefer abortion over consuming alcohol and causing irreperable damage to the fetus.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:58:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:50:42 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, they ARE parasites.:

Then you're a parasite too feeding off the supply of the world. The fact is that every one of us got our start in the exact same manner. Obviously the younger we are, the less autonomous we are.

First, "supply of the world" implies collective ownership, which I certainly don't subscribe to, and think is incoherent. Kids are perhaps parasites on their parents resources, but a consistent libertarian will tell you straight that parents aren't obligated to continue taking care of their children.

Second, a parent can choose to keep a child or not, just as an individual can choose to keep a tapeworm or not. That an entity is a parasite merely permits removal: it doesn't necessitate it.

If we say that one can't get an abortion after the condom breaks and the eggs are fertilized, we would, if we are being consistent, ban someone from removing a tapeworm after eating an undercooked steak. The only difference between the two, other than the difference in methods by which the parasites enter the body, is that there's usually a closer emotional and physical tie between mother and fetus, and, more specifically, that the fetus is a developing member of our species, as opposed to a tapeworm.:

Yeah, that, and the fact that all people were once fetuses. I don't dehumanize a fetus, thinking of it as a non-human. I look at a fetus as merely a description of that particular point in gestation or human maturity -- no different than zygote, fetus, newborn, toddler, young child, child, teenager, young adult, adult, or geriatric. They are merely descriptions of age.

That's not why those terms are important, though. If the only thing differentiating a fetus from an adult was a number, the terms would become fairly useless--it's the fact that age implies different capabilities and traits which makes the terms useful in classifying phases of human existence.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 5:59:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 5:53:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:39:14 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:34:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:29:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 5/2/2011 5:21:20 PM, OreEle wrote:

Either way, even if you invite someone, you have the right to ask them to leave. Then, if they refuse, you have the right to force them to leave (according to the non-aggression principle).

It's not that they refuse so much as that they can't.

If they physically can't (which no longer applies, since we physically can remove the baby), then you have the right to dictate how they can use your stuff in the mean time (where they sleep, what bathroom they can use, what they can eat, etc).

By "can't," I mean that they can't leave alive. For the fetus, by your explanation, it would get to stay the full nine months. The mother does get to control the nutrients it receives, after all. Of course, it would also be morally wrong to drink while pregnant due to the aggression against the fetus.

The fetus is the original aggressor so retribution against it can be justified, though I would prefer abortion over consuming alcohol and causing irreperable damage to the fetus.

lol, what?! How is consuming alcohol "irreperable damage" and so not okay, but abortion, which is also "irreperable damage," perfectly fine?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 6:11:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let me be more clear. I don't personally want to overturn Roe v Wade. I think to do so would result in draconian tactics that would undermine civil rights, as there is no practical way to determine what is spontaneous abortion versus intended abortion without violating a woman's right in the process.

My own personal belief is that I could never intentionally eradicate my progeny. My conscience won't even allow me to donate sperm knowing that 50% of "me" is going to a place unknown. The thought of my progeny growing up in possible misery without my protection makes it impossible for me to do it.

That's just my own personal standard. I don't expect anyone else to adhere to that ethic, but I won't pretend that I'm not perplexed by people who don't see it that way.

But I will say this.

Adoption is the most beneficial method, in my opinion. Mom gets to have her freedom, new parents get their little bundle of joy that they can't naturally have, and baby, well, gets to live like all of us. That sounds like a win/win/win to me.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)